32nm Quad's and Hexa's coming in March?

[aigomorla]

it just depends on what you are working with to begin with. really it was wrong of you to they "never" focus on cpus and thats what I had an issue with. any gamer with sense knows that he is going to need a decent cpu to push a high end gpu setup. so yes they do pay attention to the cpu choice even if the gpu is their main concern.

well then it would be a multi user and not gamer would it?

I said gamer... which means about 2/3rds of all your business is gaming on the computer.

Also show me where even an AMD processor is bottle necked by video cards?

The bottle neck only applies to the low low ball sector of cpu's.

 

[toyota]

well then it would be a multi user and not gamer would it?

I said gamer... which means about 2/3rds of all your business is gaming on the computer.

Also show me where even an AMD processor is bottle necked by video cards?

The bottle neck only applies to the low low ball sector of cpu's.

I am talking about just gaming on a computer. do you seriously claim that an Athlon 64 would not bottleneck a higher end video card? yes as long as you have a decent cpu then the major focus is on the gpu. that still doesnt make what you said about gamers "never" focusing on the cpu correct.

 

[nyker96]

I'm interested in seeing some price quotes, I wonder what intel will charge for the 1,86 L5609. That chip might be limited in oc potential though. why are they announcing something that's coming on march now anyways, still so far away.

 

[cbn]

I'm interested in seeing some price quotes, I wonder what intel will charge for the 1,86 L5609. That chip might be limited in oc potential though. why are they announcing something that's coming on march now anyways, still so far away.

L5609 makes 1.86 GHz on only 40 watts....so the bin is probably a good one. What I think will make it cheaper is lack of hyperthreading. Essentially L5609 is a 32nm low tdp version of Core i5 750 with 12mb cache.

 

[Gillbot]

L5609 makes 1.86 GHz on only 40 watts....so the bin is probably a good one. What I think will make it cheaper is lack of hyperthreading. Essentially L5609 is a 32nm low tdp version of Core i5 750 with 12mb cache.

As soon as I get mine installed and running well, I'll post some benches.

 

[aigomorla]

I am talking about just gaming on a computer. do you seriously claim that an Athlon 64 would not bottleneck a higher end video card? yes as long as you have a decent cpu then the major focus is on the gpu. that still doesnt make what you said about gamers "never" focusing on the cpu correct.

can you please read my comments.

I said except a low ball CPU.

A64 is in that catigory of a low ball cpu.

But have YOU honestly seen a cpu get bottle necked on a OG phenom even?

Gamers only represent a very small market in computers.
And from there Overclockers are even a smaller percentage.

The majority of people just dont care about overclocking.
At this point the majority of the gamers will prefer GPU over CPU.

And if u really need it, i can show u tons of proof that a cpu only upgrade will not net u anywhere close as getting another scalable card in your gaming setup.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Yeah but Sandy Bridge with an IGP is for the mainstream socket right? Would memory performance be compromised in the same way as it is for Core i3?

Yes, though there are rumors that there might be 6 core versions for S1156 too, I'm not too sure about that. The memory performance should be similar to S136x variant for the most part except for the exception of the tri-channel of course. 🙂

Even if it turns out worse, it won't be anywhere near the difference between Bloomfield/Lynnfield and Clarkdale parts.

It looks likely Intel will make enough of a difference between the IGP-less and the IGP enabled versions that they will perform different CPU-wise. Probably not large, but it'll probably exist.

 

[soccerballtux]

can you please read my comments.

I said except a low ball CPU.

A64 is in that catigory of a low ball cpu.

But have YOU honestly seen a cpu get bottle necked on a OG phenom even?

Gamers only represent a very small market in computers.
And from there Overclockers are even a smaller percentage.

The majority of people just dont care about overclocking.
At this point the majority of the gamers will prefer GPU over CPU.

And if u really need it, i can show u tons of proof that a cpu only upgrade will not net u anywhere close as getting another scalable card in your gaming setup.

Gamers are a huge portion of AMDs marketshare. Remember what happened to their sales when they didn't have anything competitive with Intel?

 

[cbn]

Gamers are a huge portion of AMDs marketshare. Remember what happened to their sales when they didn't have anything competitive with Intel?

This is one reason why I think a lot of gamers make comparisons of Overclocked CPUs.....while non-gamers use stock speed comparisons for work related programs.

So if Overclocked Core i3 ended up being a better gaming chip than Overclocked Phenom II x4 this doesn't bode well for AMD even if Phenom II x4 is faster in the stock speed comparisons.

 

[SHAQ]

It is the QPI of the 1366 that makes the biggest difference as well as 2 x16 PCIE slots. The older i7's are also better because they OC so well. But it is the platform that gives the biggest boost to gamers. SLI on a x58 gets a very large boost compared to x48/p45/p55. I tried to convince people to spend an extra $50 to get the 1366 instead of waiting another 6 months and getting the 1156. I just don't get it.

 

[xp0c]

Just got my Xeon, and now the X5650 is looking good. I should have done some research because I didn't think they were so close to coming out.

 

[n7]

I really don't get the fanboyism surrounding s1366 > s1156.

It really seems to heavily stem from some kind of e-penis superiority complex, likely as a mechanism to justify the extra $$$ spent [usually unnecessarily] on those w/ s1366 systems. :hmm:

The idea that gamers are crippled by s1156 is ridiculous & largely unfounded.

By FAR the majority of gamers (just look @ polls/discussions here in Video) do not care about CF/SLi, or do not want CF/SLi due to the many issues that come along with.

Now extreme enthusiasts should look @ s1366, no doubt.
But the average gamer is not in that category @ all.

I'll be gaming @ the same level as those w/ s1366 for years to come, & i'll have saved potentially hundreds of $$$ along the way.


On topic, these Xeons will make s1366 life quite interesting in the next while. 😀

 

[IntelUser2000]

It is the QPI of the 1366 that makes the biggest difference as well as 2 x16 PCIE slots. The older i7's are also better because they OC so well. But it is the platform that gives the biggest boost to gamers. SLI on a x58 gets a very large boost compared to x48/p45/p55. I tried to convince people to spend an extra $50 to get the 1366 instead of waiting another 6 months and getting the 1156. I just don't get it.

QPI doesn't do anything for gamers. Theoretically the Socket 1156 should also have advantage due to lower latency PCI Express controller, but we found out the hard way that game code cares ZERO about latency. The dual x16 link is the biggest factor for Socket 1366.

 

[Gillbot]

Well, it now looks like this thread is heading to the toilet like the other one did.

All I can say is, Westmere works 100% on the Asrock x58 Extreme which will make MANY people happy!!

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=986368

 

[cbn]

I really don't get the fanboyism surrounding s1366 > s1156.

It really seems to heavily stem from some kind of e-penis superiority complex, likely as a mechanism to justify the extra $$$ spent [usually unnecessarily] on those w/ s1366 systems. :hmm:

But wouldn't the lower Bandwidth on P55 limit the use of higher performance SATA 3 SSD devices and higher performance video cards together? Wouldn't Fermi 2+ and HD6870+ quite possibly use more than 8x PCI-E 2.0 Bandwidth?

Remember most people keep a system 4+ years.

 

[cbn]

Well, it now looks like this thread is heading to the toilet like the other one did.

All I can say is, Westmere works 100% on the Asrock x58 Extreme which will make MANY people happy!!

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=986368

Can the Asrock use a SATA 3/USB 3 AIB while still preserving full Crossfire/SLI potential?

 

[Gillbot]

Can the Asrock use a SATA 3/USB 3 AIB while still preserving full Crossfire/SLI potential?

I could answer if I knew what you were talking about.

Ok, I guess you mean use an add in card with all 3 PCIe populated with dual width cards?
I would say yes, since there SHOULD be 1 PCI open with all three PCIe filled, plus there's a 1x PCIe above the "top" PCIe cars slot as well.

See the pic here: http://www.asrock.com/MB/overview.asp?Model=X58%20Extreme

EDIT #2: http://www.asrock.com/mb/spec/Card.asp?Model=SATA3 Card
Asrock's SATA 3 card is a PCIe 1x which would work.

 

[cbn]

I could answer if I knew what you were talking about.

Ok, I guess you mean use an add in card with all 3 PCIe populated with dual width cards?
I would say yes, since there SHOULD be 1 PCI open with all three PCIe filled, plus there's a 1x PCIe above the "top" PCIe cars slot as well.

See the pic here: http://www.asrock.com/MB/overview.asp?Model=X58 Extreme

EDIT #2: http://www.asrock.com/mb/spec/Card.asp?Model=SATA3 Card
Asrock's SATA 3 card is a PCIe 1x which would work.

I thought the SATA 3 with USB 3 was a PCI-E 2.0 x4 card?

And yes, using all three PCI-E slots is what I am talking about (x4.x16,x16)

 

[n7]

Well, it now looks like this thread is heading to the toilet like the other one did.

All I can say is, Westmere works 100% on the Asrock x58 Extreme which will make MANY people happy!!

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=986368

Nice!

Now how does it OC? :twisted:

 

[soccerballtux]

This is one reason why I think a lot of gamers make comparisons of Overclocked CPUs.....while non-gamers use stock speed comparisons for work related programs.

So if Overclocked Core i3 ended up being a better gaming chip than Overclocked Phenom II x4 this doesn't bode well for AMD even if Phenom II x4 is faster in the stock speed comparisons.

No it does not bode well for them...but fully utilized, an overclock Ph2 can't lose to an i3. We see that "full" utilization in many apps currently that actually crunch information through 4 threads.

I stand by my verdict-- if i3 is _ever_ faster _now_ (and Hey Zeus' thread was proof it almost always wasn't), when full threading comes to gaming, the Ph2 will outperform it.

In the off scenario that an i3 beats the Ph2 today, the Ph2 is still capable of keeping the game nicely above 60fps.
Tomorrow, that i3 will not be able to keep up, just like it can't keep up in encoding.

 

[cbn]

In the off scenario that an i3 beats the Ph2 today

Yep, we never saw the full overclocked comparisons (ie, 4.6 Ghz Core i3 vs 4 Ghz Phenom II x4).

Thankfully Anandtech did do a 4 Ghz Core i3 vs 3.4 Ghz Phenom II x4 gaming comparison though--->http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3724&p=5

I think it is absolutely rediculous that an Intel dual core beats the flagship AMD quad core in the most quad optimized game to date, Dragon Age Origins. What would have happened if Intel didn't purposely cripple the memory controller on Core i3?

Tomorrow, that i3 will not be able to keep up, just like it can't keep up in encoding.

Well yeah the fact AMD Phenom II x4 does much better in encoding points to game engines lagging pretty badly in multi-threaded utilization 3+ years after the introduction of quad core right?

In fact, the way programming is going I even wonder if full size mainboards will be less popular in the future for gaming. My newbie (non-IT industry guess) is that SSD and Video card technology will predominate instead. (Small compact cheap mainboard, Fullsize Video card, nice SSD being the most cost effective gaming experience)

That being said, I still think x58 is the way to go at the moment.

 

[Munky]

But wouldn't the lower Bandwidth on P55 limit the use of higher performance SATA 3 SSD devices and higher performance video cards together? Wouldn't Fermi 2+ and HD6870+ quite possibly use more than 8x PCI-E 2.0 Bandwidth?

Remember most people keep a system 4+ years.

Why would SATA3 limit a P55 board to 8x pci-e? Even if it did, we already saw that the 5870 only suffers a negligible performance hit from 8x, that doesn't mean a 6870 will be any different.

And 4+ years? Even in 2 years I expect Intel will have a new socket, new architecture which beats i7, and hardly anyone will care about the advantages of current 1366 boards. The only way I can see 1156 owners being screwed is if they plan to upgrade to some version of SB, and none are available for their socket.

 

[Gillbot]

Nice!

Now how does it OC? :twisted:

So far, the jump from 133bclk to 166bclk was a cake walk, no adjustments needed on anything. The real major downer is the multi so you are likely only to be limited by the bclk ability of your board and ram.

Sadly, I'm going to be ram limited most likely until I tweak my timings for the junk ram I have. Aside from that, Real Temp doesn't work right, I think I need a new version of that so I can't even see temps.

 

[cbn]

Why would SATA3 limit a P55 board to 8x pci-e? Even if it did, we already saw that the 5870 only suffers a negligible performance hit from 8x, that doesn't mean a 6870 will be any different.

Why do you think HD6870 will not use any extra bandwidth compared to HD5870?

 

[cbn]

And 4+ years? Even in 2 years I expect Intel will have a new socket, new architecture which beats i7, and hardly anyone will care about the advantages of current 1366 boards.

I realize Intel improves their products, but that doesn't mean people don't hold onto old hardware.

Good example is LGA 1366/1156. Even though those boards have been released for some time lots of people are still using LGA 775. Therefore upgradability still matters.